Ontario Hydro Lands
Ravine / Naturalized Park, below average overall (score 27, rank ~19th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: amenity diversity.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Ontario Hydro Lands, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
Ontario Hydro Lands scores 27.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 7.13 ha
Getting around
1.3 km of mapped path, 97% paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Parking inside the park. None of the 7 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.
Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Explain this score
Where did the 27 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
Sum of contributions = the headline score. A negative bar means that dimension dragged the park below the city-wide neutral baseline.
Why this park works
Ontario Hydro Lands works because its connectivity score (72) is in the top tier (34 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).
What limits this park
Ontario Hydro Lands is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (72, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Ontario Hydro Lands sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (72) significantly outpaces natural comfort (46): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- The park is enclosed by buildings (60) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
- High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.
Performance in context
- Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -10; cohort: large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 87% ravine overlap, 1% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 3.2× a circle of equal area).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 9 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.
Source: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.
Connectivity
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 12 mapped paths/walkways and 43 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 34 street intersections within 100 m; 1 streetcar or LRT stop, 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 11 estimated access points across ~3,037 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.2% estimated tree canopy; 86.6% inside the ravine system; 1.2% water surface; 20 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.8/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
139 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 129 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.9 m (~2 floors); 4.6 buildings per 100 m of 3,037 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Weston Road, Weston Road, Weston Road. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.
Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.
Equity Context
Equity Context requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.
Source: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.
Amenities (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (31)
- parking lot0 m
- highway: Weston Road10 m
- highway: Weston Road20 m
- highway: Weston Road21 m
- retail: Custom Kitchen34 m
- retail: Sport Chek41 m
- retail: Structube45 m
- transit stop: Keele St at Gunns Rd50 m
- highway: Weston Road57 m
- transit stop: Keele St at Gunns Rd59 m
- highway: Weston Road77 m
- transit stop: McCormack Street81 m
- retail: HomeSense82 m
- restaurant: Vila Verda Bar and Grill82 m
- transit stop: Corbett Avenue84 m
- retail: PetSmart88 m
- transit stop: Corbett Avenue90 m
- parking lot94 m
- parking lot95 m
- parking lot96 m
- transit stop: McCormack Street106 m
- parking lot: Garage North110 m
- highway: Weston Road116 m
- retail: Marshalls130 m
- retail: Winners133 m
- highway: Weston Road134 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision135 m
- parking lot155 m
- parking lot175 m
- restaurant: Mr. Puff’s Dessert Bar190 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality19th
- Edge activation29th
- Connectivity93th
- Amenity diversity16th
- Natural comfort47th
- Enclosure42th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Don River WatercourseWaterfront Park28
- Humber River WatercourseWaterfront Park35
- Jolly Miller ParkWaterfront Park26
- Elmcrest ParkRavine / Naturalized Park35
- The GoreNeighbourhood Park28
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza64
Human activity signals: not available
No activity signals have landed for this park yet. The model has scored its physical form but it can’t yet say how often it’s programmed, photographed, or walked through. See /data-ethics for what we will and will not collect.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Ontario Hydro Lands matters. We’re testing whether the model lines up with how people actually use the park. Submissions are stored locally; no account needed.
Tell us how this park feels
We measure structure (canopy, edges, connectivity). You measure feeling. Both matter, and disagreement is itself useful civic data.
What would improve this park?
Generated from the weakest measured dimensions: a starting point, not a prescription.
- Activate the edges: encourage cafés, retail or community uses on the streets that face the park; replace blank or parking-lot edges where possible.
- Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.
- Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
- Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.